‘전기 왜구’와 ‘후기 왜구’ 용어의 모순과 새 용어의 선택

김보한 일본사학회 2013 일본역사연구 Vol.38 No.-

The Korea-Japan academic community have been using terms of ‘the first half period of Wakou’ and ‘the second half period of Wakou.’ These terms, however, are problematic in that they are based on the conventional knowledge existed for about 50 years. Firstly, the term ‘the first half period of Wakou’ had been using to refer to the Wakou of 14th and 15th centuries. It is problematic because the term misses the Wakou of the 13th century. Secondly, the main body of Wakou in the ‘the first half period of Wakou’ was understood as the ‘union of Koryo-Chosun people.’ Yet, the remaining body of Wakou in the ‘the first half period of Wakou’ was the Japanese people (Akutou(惡黨). Thirdly, the Wakou of the 14th century needs to include the Japanese as well as the Chinese merchants. Fourthly, the main body of Wakou in the ‘the second half period of Wakou’ needs to include both the Japanese and Chinese merchants as well as the Western merchants. In this respect, the Wakou in East Asia must be examined by using terms such as the ‘Kamakura period Wakou,’ the ‘Muromachi period Wakou,’ and the ‘Sengoku period Wakou’ in a study of Wakou.

무라이 쇼스케(村井章介)의 <왜구=경계인>설에 대한 비판적 검토

송종호 ( Song Jong Ho ) 역사교육학회 2017 역사교육논집 Vol.63 No.-

The logical framework of Mr. Shosuke Murai`s Marginal Man theory of Wakou (倭寇; Japanese pirates) is as follows: (i) the core members of Wakou were Wajin (倭人), the Japanese, only from the Three Islands which were Tsushima, Iki and Hakata, not from the other regions of Japan; (ii) among them, Wakou were only commoners, not warlords; (iii) based on the anti-governmental nature of Wakou activities, Koreans should have participated in Wakou; and (iv) Korean captives, Cheju Islanders and Hwacheok and Jaein (who were butchers and other lower-class people in medieval Korea) consisted of the same `Marginal Man` group together with Wakou. With respect to his arguments (i) and (ii), there are a lot of historical sources against the above Marginal Man theory. Also, some inconsistent and contradictory arguments have been found in his own book in relation to his arguments (i) and (ii). On the other hand, we have several sources supporting that some Japanese warlords participated in, and even led, the Wakou group. With respect to the argument (iii), Mr. Murai`s argument for the anti-governmental nature of Wakou activities is based on the hidden premise that Koreans participated in Wakou from the earlier period of the second half of the 14th century, which has no ground, either from relevant sources or in theories. Then, the anti-governmental nature of Wakou activities has been used for his conclusion for the Koreans` participation in Wakou, which may seem a tautology or a circular logic. Moreover, his logical flow seems to confuse the purpose (or nature) and the agents of Wakou activities. With respect to the argument (iv) setting forth possible Korean agents in Wakou, he ignored Wakou`s harsh coercion over Korean captives, and missed several important aspects in his study on Cheju Islanders. Also, there are several improper citations of historical sources regarding Korean captives, Cheju Islanders, and Hwacheok and Jaein. In addition, his conclusion for the participation of some Korean people in Wakou activities as Marginal Man seems not consistent in his book. Based on the problems in his logical flows, improper citations and the inconsistencies in his arguments, his Marginal Man theory of Wakou would not be acceptable, without further elaborations.

"가마쿠라기 왜구"와 "무로마치기 왜구"의 비교 연구

김보한 ( Bo Han Kim ) 단국사학회 2014 史學志 Vol.49 No.-

가마쿠라기 왜구는 ‘조큐(承久)의 난’이 발발한 이후 공가를 지지하던 서국 무사들이 소령을 몰수당하는 위기상황에 생존을 위한 해적 행위와 바다 건너 고려를 침탈하는 과정에서 출발하였다. 이 가마쿠라기 왜구는 『고려사』와 일본 사료에서도 똑같이 고려의 침탈 흔적을 남기는데, 경상도와 전라도 연안 일대를 중심으로 왜선 1-2척과 적은 인원으로 약탈에 참여하는 것이 특징이다. 무로마치기 왜구는 막부의 내부 혼란이라는 간노죠란(觀應擾亂)의 영향으로 규슈의 불안한 정국이 이어지면서 고려에 갑자기 증가하는 왜구로서, 『고려사』에서는 ‘경인년(1350) 이후 왜구’로 소개되어 있다. 이 무로마치기 왜구는 수백 척의 선박과 수천 명의 구성원으로 대규모화되었고 약탈 지역도 이전의 경상도와 전라도 연안을 벗어나 양광도와 고려 수도 근처의 교동과 강화도에까지 확대되었다. 특히 규슈에 내려온 규슈탐제 이마가와료슌에 의한 남조와의 격렬한 전투로 재지에 큰 혼란을 가져왔기 때문에, 왜구의 침탈이 폭발적으로 늘어날 수밖에 없었다. 가마쿠라기 왜구와 무로마치기 왜구는 약탈의 규모, 왜구 구성원의 숫자, 약탈의 횟수 등에서 확연하게 다르게 나타났다. 무로마치기 왜구는 일본의 대규모 혼란기에 나타났기 때문에 고려와 조선의 외교적 노력에도 불구하고 쉽게 사라지지 않았다. 결국 1392년 일본의 정국 안정이 시작되면서 점차 왜구의 출현이 사라지기 시작하였다. 조선 개국 직후 ‘무로마치기 왜구’의 출몰은 최대의 정치 현안이었다. 조선은 무로마치 막부, 다자이후, 대마도, 슈고(守護)세력 등과 수시로 사신을 주고받으며 다원적인 왜구금지 외교를 시도하였다. 또한 삼포(三浦)를 열고 조선에 투화한 왜인에게 생활 안정을 제공해 주는 유화정책을 통해 왜구를 진정시켜 나갔다. The revolt of Joukyu broken out in the Kamakura period, and the politics and the society of Japan was plunged in confusion. The Japanese pirate was Wakou that looted Koryeo. Koryeo sent envoys to Kamakura Bakufu in order to inhabit Wakou``s plunder and received a cover letter of amity from Dazafu. In conclusion, the diplomacy of Koryeo to the prohibition against Wakou’s plunder had produced some successful results. After Kamakura Bakufu collapsed, Wakou kept appearing and disappearing around the coast of Koryeo through Kanno’s disturbance. Koryeo sent envoys to Bakufu and Tsusima and developed the diplomatic policy to the prohibition against Wakou’s plunder. Bakufu and Tsusima were in favor of Koryeo envoys to the prohibition against Wakou’s plunder. Therefore, a friendly attitude of Bakufu and Tsusima was the conclusive evidence to prove that Wakou kept appearing and disappearing around the coast of Koryeo in the Muromatsi period. The appearance of Wakou in the Muromatsi period was a top of the agenda since Joseon kingdom was founded. Joseon exchanged envoys with Muromachi Bakufu, Dazafu and Tsusima and attempted the multifactorial diplomatic policy to the prohibition against Wakou’s plunder. Also, Joseon adopted the appeasement policy that opened the Sampo and provided Japanese who was betook to submission and was naturalized as a Joseon man and with the stabilization of livelihood. This policy increased a financial burden to Joseon kingdom. But this was a peace-keeping charge to keep the domestic stability of Joseon kingdom.

고려 · 조선의 금구외교(禁寇外交)와 일본의 대응

김보한(Kim, Bo-Han) 한일관계사학회 2019 한일관계사연구 Vol.66 No.-

고려에서 왜구의 출몰은 일본열도에서 조큐(承久)의 난의 발발로 시작되었다. 이들이 ‘가마쿠라 왜구’인데, 왜구의 고려 침탈 기록은 일본 사료인 『명월기』,『백련초』, 『오처경』 등에도 나타난다. 이 시기에 고려는 금구사신을 수차례 파견하여 막부와 다자이후로부터 매우 우호적인 회답을 받아냈다. 무로마치 막부의 성립 후 시작된 남북조내란은 일본열도를 큰 혼란에 빠뜨렸다. 특히 1350년대에 고려에서 왜구가 창궐하였는데, 이들이 ‘무로마치 왜구’이다. 1360년대부터 고려는 왜구를 제압하고 왜구의 발호를 근절시키기 위하여 교토에 금구사신을 파견하기 시작하였다. 그러나 기대했던 것만큼 성공적이지는 못하였다. 조선은 개국 직후부터 무로마치 막부, 다자이후, 대마도, 슈고(守護)세력 등과 수시로 금구사신을 주고받으며 다각적으로 왜구금지 외교를 시도하였다. 그리고 강경책으로 왜구를 군사력으로 토벌하는 대마도 정벌을 두 차례나 실시하였다. 반면에 조선 초기부터 ‘삼포’시대를 열어 투화한 왜인을 수용하고 이들의 안정적인 생활까지도 배려하는 우호적인 대왜인 정책을 전개하였다. Waking up of the Wakou began when Japanese pirates plundered koryeo. These are the Kamakura Wakou. During the time of Wakou"s appearance, Koryo dispatched the Prohibit Wakou Reaper several times to the Shogunate. And Koryo received a very favorable reply from the Shogunate and Dazaifu. In 1350, the early days of the Muromatsi shogunate, Wakou struck out in Goryeo in the aftermath of Kannojoran. Wakou"s invasion, which began in earnest after the Gyeongin year (1350), caused serious social and economic damage to koryeo. Joseon tried to prevent the appearance of “Muromatsi Wakou,” which is temporarily increasing right after the country. Since its inception, Joseon has frequently exchanged Prohibit Wakou gods with the Muromatsi Shogunate, the Dazaifu, the Tsushima, and the Shugo, and attempted various diplomatic bans on Wakou. On the other hand, Joseon twice conquered Tsushima, which was a hard-line war against Wakou.

고려·조선의 對일본 외교와 왜구

김보한(Kim Bo-han) 한일관계사학회 2014 한일관계사연구 Vol.47 No.-

1221년 가마쿠라 시대의 정치와 사회를 혼란의 소용돌이로 빠뜨리는 조큐(承久)의 난이 발발하였다. 이후 일본해적은 고려를 대상으로 약탈하는 왜구로 전환하였다. 고려는 가마쿠라 막부에 왜구금지 사신을 파견하였고, 다자이후로부터 매우 우호적인 첩장을 받아냈다. 결과적으로 고려의 왜구금지 외교는 어느 정도의 성과를 거둘 수 있었다. 가마쿠라 막부가 멸망하고,이어 발발한 간노죠란(觀應擾亂)의 영향으로 고려에 왜구가 더욱 자주 출몰하였다. 고려는 막부와 대마도에 사신을 파견하여 왜구금지 외교를 전개하였다. 막부와 대마도는 고려의 왜구금지 사신에게 매우 호의적이었다. 따라서 막부와 대마도의 고려에 대한 우호적 태도는 ‘무로마치기 왜구’가 바다 건너 고려에 출몰했다는 것을 입증하는 결정적 증거이다. 조선 개국 직후 ‘무로마치기 왜구’의 출몰은 대일본 외교의 최대 현안이었다. 조선은 무로마치 막부, 다자이후,대마도, 슈고(守護)세력 등과 수시로 사신을 주고받으며 다원적인 왜구금지 외교를 시도하였다. 또 조선은 삼포(三浦)를 열고 조선에 투화한 왜인에게 생활 안정을 제공해 주는 유화정책을 실시하였다. 이 같은 조선의 대왜인 정책은 조선에게 막대한 재정적 부담을 안겨주었다. 그러나 이것은 조선의 국내안정에 필요한 평화유지비용이었으며 평화와 안전을 도모하고 일본에 대한 영향력을 제고시키기 위한 범국가적 외교행위였다. The revolt of Joukyu broken out in the Kamakura period, and the politics and the society of Japan was plunged in confusion. The Japanese pirate was Wakou that looted Koryeo. Koryeo sent envoys to Kamakura Bakufu in order to inhabit Wakou’s plunder and received a cover letter of amity from Dazafu. In conclusion, the diplomacy of Koryeo to the prohibition against Wakou’s plunder had produced some successful result. After Kamakura Bakufu collapsed, Wakou kept appearing and disappearing around the coast of Koryeo through Kanno’s disturbance. Koryeo sent envoys to Bakufu and Tsusima and developed the diplomatic policy to the prohibition against Wakou’ splunder. Bakufu and Tsusima were in favor of Koryeo envoys to the prohibition against Wakou’s plunder. Therefore, a friendly attitude of Bakufu and Tsusima was the conclusive evidence to prove that Wakou kept appearing and disappearing around the coast of Koryeo in the Muromatsi period. The appearance of Wakou in the Muromatsi period was a top of the agenda since Joseon kingdom was founded. Joseon exchanged envoys with Muromachi Bakufu, Dazafu and Tsusima and attempted the multifactorial diplomatic policy to the prohibition against Wakou’s plunder. Also, Joseon adopted the appeasement policy that opened the Sampo and provided Japanese who was betook to submission and was naturalized as a Joseon man and with the stabilization of livelihood. This policy increased a financial burden to Joseon kingdom. But this was a peace-keeping charge to keep the domestic stability of Joseon kingdom.

중세의 왜구

김보한(Kim Bo-Han) 한일관계사학회 2008 한일관계사연구 Vol.30 No.-

동아시아 해역에서 활동하던 왜구에 관한 일본학자의 학술사적 연구는 19세기 말부터 시작되었다. 왜구의 발생 원인에 대해서 초기 왜구 연구에서는 일본 해적의 활동으로 파악하였다.그런데 왜구의 연구가 심화될수록 왜구의 발생을 고려 내부의 문란한 정치적ㆍ경제적 혼란 상황으로 설명하는 이중적 분석이 출현하여 현재에 이르고 있다. 왜구의 주체를 고려인ㆍ일본인으로 규정하는 일본학자의 견해의 출발은 인용한 사료의 선택에 있다. 일본 측 사료의 인용을 등한시하고 고려측 사료에만 의존한 인용이 논리의 편향을 불러왔던 것이다. 이러한 고려측 사료만의 전적인 인용은 왜구의 발생 원인을 고려 내부의 혼란 상황과 연결하고 고려 내부의 문제로만 제한시켰던 것이다. 이렇게 자의적인 사료 인용과 비논리성이 왜구사 연구에 커다란 걸림돌로 작용하는 것은 당연하다고 하겠다. 근래 일본학자의 논리는 왜구의 주체가 고려의 천민이고, 왜구의 활동을 이들의 활약인 것으로 규정함으로써, 왜구의 발생 원인보다는 ‘왜구 주체론’으로 관심을 유도하고 있다. 그럼에도 우리가 일인학자들의 논리를 뒤집지 못하는 이유는 반대로 일본의 정치상황과 해적 활동 사이에 유기적인 관계를 분석해 내지 못한 것에 기인한다고 할 수 있다. 이러한 사료의 자의적 선택과 인용문의 편파적 해석으로 성립된 일본학계의 왜구 논리가 일선의 고등학교 역사교과서에는 어떻게 접목되어 있는가를 분석해 본 결과 다음과 같은 결론에 도달하게 되었다. 먼저, 왜구의 근거지, 왜구의 발생원인, 왜구의 주체와 관련하여 약 2/3정도가 비교적 객관적인 논지로 서술되었음을 알 수 있었다.둘째로 대부분의 일본 역사 교과서가 고등학교 학습지도 요령 대로 왜구를 교류사와 교역사의 범주에 넣어 기술하고 있다는 점이었다. 마지막으로 왜구의 근거지와 왜구의 주체와 관련해서 일부 일본학자의 왜곡된 견해가 그대로 반영된 예가 존재한다는 점이었다. 따라서 이를 개선하는 방법으로서 우선 한?일 학자 간의 정기적인 상호 교류와 토론을 통해서 학술적 성과를 조율하고, 교사와 민간단체의 적극적인 교류와 자료교환을 병행하여 공동의 연구성과를 도출해 내야 한다는 결론에 이르게 되었다. Historical study of the Japanese scholar about Wakou(倭寇) which moved into action in East Asia sea area began from the end of the 19th century. And the early Wakou study grasped the activity of the Japanese pirate about the origin of the Wakou. By the way, analysis of the doubleness to explain in the confusion situation of the economy and the politics to be disturbed of the Korea dynasty inside appeared so that the study of the Wakou was deepened. The opinion of the Japanese scholar who prescribed the subject of the Wakou with an alliance of the Korean and Japanese were began by the choice of the historical materials. The quotation that leaned on only historical materials of the Korea dynasty caused an inclination of the logic. The full-scale quotation only for suchthe Korea dynasty side historical materials was able to be connected by the internal confusion situation to stew the origin of the Wakou. It is natural for so arbitrary historical materials quotation and illogicalness to act on a history of Japanese pirates study with a big obstacle. And the Japanese logic guides the interest of the circumference to ‘The Wakou subject theory’ than the origin of the Japanese pirates these days. We overturn the logic of Japanese scholars, and the reason is still because that cannot let the Wakou company form newly cannot analyze organic relations between the politics situation and pirate activity adversely. A high school history textbook shows quotation of such logic. The first, the foothold, origin, the subject of the Wakou are done by an objective point of argument about 2/3 rank. The 2nd, most Japanese history textbooks belong to history of interchange and a category of trade company according to <The course of study in the high school> in the Wakou. Finally, it was the point that there was the example that a distorted opinion was just reflected of some of the Japanese scholar. Therefore, as a method to improve this, at first change periodical mutual interchange and document between the scholars and lead joint results of research and must start it.

중세 왜구의 경계침탈로 본 한·일 관계

김보한(Bo-han Kim) 한일관계사학회 2012 한일관계사연구 Vol.42 No.-

우리는 역사에서 어떤 국가의 내부 혼란이 주변의 다른 국가의 정치와 정책 결정에 크게 영향을 미치는 경우를 흔히 볼 수 있다. 한 가지 예로서 왜구의 출몰로 시작된 고려와 조선의 대왜(對倭)정책을 들 수 있다. 13세기 이후 왜구의 등장은 고려와 조선으로 하여금 왜구의 경계침탈을 막기 위한 대왜 외교를 적극 추진하게 만들었다. 왜구의 경계침탈과 그로 인해 전개된 외교의 양상을 몇 가지로 요약 정리하면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 초기 가마쿠라 왜구는 조큐의 난의 발발과 관련되어 있으며, 고려군과의 군사적 충돌을 염두에 두지 않은 소규모 집단의 약탈에서 출발하였다. 또 가마쿠라 왜구가 고려에 등장하는 시점과 마쓰우라당이 고려의 경계를 침탈하는 시점이 거의 일치한다. 따라서 가마쿠라 왜구는 마쓰우라당이 주도적으로 가담한 약탈 행위였다. 둘째, 다자이후는 가마쿠라 왜구의 경계침탈을 막아줄 것을 요구하는 고려의 왜구 금지 사신이 도착하였을 때, ‘악당’ 을 참수하거나 약탈한 물품을 변상하는 등의 매우 호의적인 자세로 임하였다. 셋째, 무로막치 막부는 조선에 보낸 첩장에서 무로마치 왜구가 남북조 내란기의 규수의 정치 혼란과 직접 관련되어 있음을 스스로 인정하고 있었다. 그리고 무로막치 막부는 고려와 조선에서 왜구의 경계침탈 금지를 요구하는 사신이 오자, 고려에 능동적으로 답례의 사신을 파견하였다. 이 러한 무로마치 막부의 적극적인 대(對)조선 외교 자세에도 불구하고 왜구의 경계침탈이 즉각적으로 사라지지 않았다. 넷째, 무로마치 왜구의 금지는 해적 금지령의 공포와 같은 막부의 의지와 재지세력의 자구적 노력, 그리고 조선의 대(對)왜인 강온정책 등의 상호 촉매 작용을 통하여 그 결실을 보게 되었다. In general, the certain situation of a country influenced on foreign relations among neighbor countries. For example, this problem belongs with the diplomacy between Japan and Goryeo and Joseon that are related to Wakou. The diplomacy between Korea and Japan is as follows. Firstly, Wakou in the early Kamakura Bakuhu age is related to the rise of Joqui’s rebellion and is the small group that is not related to the military confrontation between Goryeo and Wakou. Also, the time that Matsuura Tou disseise the boundary of Goryeo. Therefore, Wakou in the Kamakura Bakuhu age means that Matsuura Tou plunder autonomously Goryeo kingdom. Secondly, When the envoy of Goryeo kingdom come and demand to resist the boundary disseisin of Wakou, Kamakura Bakuhu decapitate Ackutou and reimburse looted goods. Thirdly, Wakou in the Muromachi Bakuhu age was related to the political crisis of Kyushu in Japanese North and South Dynasties according to the letters to Joseon from Muromachi Bakuhu. When envoys of Goryeo and Joseon kingdoms came and demanded to resist the boundary disseisin of Wakou, Kamakura Bakuahu sent replying envoys to Goryeo and Joseon. Nevertheless, the boundary disseisin of Wakou was perfectly eradicated. Fourthly, Wakou in the Muromachi Bakuhu age was annihilate through the volition and political stability of Bakuhu, and Joseon’s policy based on toughness and moderateness. Moreover, Muromachi Bakuful has been announced a low prohibiting pirate from plundering and tried to annihilate Wakou.

무라이 쇼스케(村井章介)의 ‘境界人論’ 및 그 倭寇 연구 체계에 대한 비판적 검토

송종호 한국중세사학회 2016 한국중세사연구 Vol.0 No.46

According to Mr. Shosuke Murai’s ‘Marginal Man Theory (境界人論)’, the Marginal Men lived in the Marginal Space located among the countries in the pre-modern world, and carried out trade, diplomacy, piracy, and other activities, connecting such countries. However, neither ‘Margin (境界)’ nor ‘Marginal Man (境界人)’, the two core concepts of the theory, has clearly defined, and the theory has some potential problems when it is applied to specific historical events or phenomena. First, generally speaking, ‘Margin’ should be either ‘boundary’, which is a political or military one, or ‘frontier’, which means one in non-political aspects. But, Mr. Murai’s ‘Margin’ does not fall onto either one, and its meaning is not well defined. Moreover, since the boundary between Korea and Japan has been firmly established earlier from the medieval ages, it would not be proper to apply the theory to the history between the two countries, including studies on Wakou (which is normally interpreted as ‘Japanese Pirates’). Second, with respect to the definition of ‘Marginal Man’, the broadest definition covering all examples mentioned by him, such as Hwacheok and Jaein (who were butchers and actors in Korean medieval ages), Korean translators of the Japanese language, captive Koreans in Japan, and even Japanese Christians in Japan, does not seem to work properly, because all of such Marginal Men cannot be treated as a one group. Also, there are some important problems in the narrower definition of ‘Marginal Man’, which has been broadly used throughout his theory, focusing on the main region of their activities surrounding the China Sea, such as the Three Islands (consisting of Tsushima, Iki and Hakata), Korean southern coastal region, Cheju Island, and certain Chinese southeastern coastal regions: (i) the general theory does not apply to the ‘Marginal Space’ between Korea and Japan, (ii) a sense of unity as one group has not been found from the group of such ‘Marginal Men’, and (iii) it seems that the domain of his ‘Marginal Space’ has been determined arbitrarily, not on any rational grounds. In addition, the narrower definition has failed to include some Korean people, such as Hwacheok and Jaein, essential for his explanation on the question whom Wakou consisted of. Accordingly, the definition of ‘Marginal Man’ seems not clear in any sense. Third, in terms of the spatial scope of the theory, the Marginal Space, where the Marginal Men carried out their activities, is larger than their main region of habitation or origination. Accordingly, Marginal Men, and the counterparties to their activities who were not Marginal Men, lived together in the same Marginal Space, and therefore these two groups should have been separately described. As Mr. Murai failed to differentiate sub-groups in the whole Marginal Man group, his Wakou concept has also become ambiguous. It sometimes means only Japanese people on the Three Islands, while it means all Marginal Men themselves including Korean Cheju Islanders, Hwacheok and Jaein in other contexts. Fourth, due to the vast time scope of the theory, a lot of other potential problems may occur. Among them, the two major problems related to studies on Wakou are (i) the improper unification of the 14th and 15th Century Wakou and the 16th century Wakou, which were different from each other in many aspects, and (ii) the improper introduction of the ‘Japanese of Korean descent’, found mainly in the 15th century, in the description on the 14th centrury Wakou. Therefore, the Marginal Man Theory should be modified so that the above mentioned problems could be solved. Otherwise, it would not be proper to apply to studies on Wakou.

고려 말 왜구 근거지의 일고찰-마쓰우라(松浦)와 마쓰우라토(松浦黨)를 중심으로-

김보한(Kim Bohan) 한일관계사학회 2020 한일관계사연구 Vol.70 No.-

고대 말기부터 마쓰우라(松浦)는 해적과 밀접하게 관련된 지역이었다. 13세기 마쓰우라가 왜구의 근거지였고, 이곳의 약소무사와 주민들이 왜구이며 약탈자로 활동하였다. 14세기 남북조내란기에 접어들면서 마쓰우라라는 일족 이름을 함께 사용하여 일족의 분열을 극복하려고 노력하였다. 그러나 1350년 간노죠란(觀應擾亂)의 대 혼란에서 마쓰우라의 약소무사들은 정황에 따라 개별적으로 활동하였다. 고려는 이 시기에 창궐하는 왜구를 “경인년(1350) 이후의 왜구”로 부르기 시작하였다. 한편 1371년 이마가와 료슌(今川了俊)이 규슈로 내려왔을 때, 마쓰우라 일족의 약소무사들이 대해적세력으로 성장해 있었다. 한편 마쓰우라의 약소무사는 해적과 약탈을 금지하며 어장의 경계를 구분하는 ‘계약장(契約狀)’과 ‘압서장(押書狀)’을 체결하였다. 이들은 ‘계약장’으로 왜구 출몰을 자제시켰고, ‘압서장(押書狀)’으로 왜구들의 안정적인 정착에 유도하였다. 이로서 마쓰우라의 약소무사와 주민들이 고려 왜구의 창궐, 혹은 소멸 과정과 밀접하게 관련되어 있었음을 파악할 수 있었다. 마쓰우라 지역은 왜구 근거지이며 마쓰우라토는 고려 왜구의 주체 세력이었다. Since the end of ancient times, Matsuura(松浦) has been closely related to pirates. In the 13th century, Matsuura was the base of Wakou, and the small samurai and residents of Matsuura were Wakou and predators. In the 14th century, Matsuura tried to overcome the division of relatives by jointly using the names of relatives. However, in 1350 in Kannojoran(觀應擾亂), Matsuura"s small warriors worked individually according to the political situation. In addition, the Matsuura relatives crossed the ocean and sought a new way of life to Wakou. Their Wakou activities are called "Wakou after Gyeongin Year (1350)". On the other hand, when Ryoshun Imagawa descended to Kyushu in 1371, the small warriors of the Matsuura family had grown into uncontrollable pirate forces. In addition, Matsuura"s ‘Kyeoyakjang(契約狀)’ and ‘Apseojang(押書狀)’ appeared. The ‘IkkiKyeoyakjang(一揆契約狀)’ refrained from appearing in Wakou, and the ‘Apseojang’ induces the Wakou to establish a stable in Urautsi(浦內). As a result, the Matsuura area is the base of Wakou, and the small samurai of Matsuura were closely related to the outbreak or extinction of Wakou.

무로마치 왜구와 조선의 대(對)왜인 정책

김보한 고려대학교 글로벌일본연구원 2012 일본연구 Vol.18 No.-

Wakou appeared in the early of 13th century. After 1350, Wakou often invaded Goryeo kingdom and caused considerable damage in its society and economy. Goryeo kingdom dispatched an envoy to Japan for the checking of Wakou from 1360’s. In 1370’s, Goryeo kingdom carried out the military sanction in order to check the Wakou aggression. For example, Goryeo kingdom won a signal victory in Jinpo, Hwangsan and Gwanyeumpo through gunpowder weaponry and gone on a conquest of Tsushima. In other words, Goryeo kingdom tried to check Wakou through the power of diplomacy and military. But these polices of Goryeo kingdom hesitated to say positively their success. Because Wakou was not eradicated. Meanwhile, Joseon kingdom adopted a policy that was very amicable toward the Japanese to maintain the peace and the stability. As a result, the number of Japanese that lived in Josenon kingdom increased rapidly as compared with Goryeo kingdom. Joseon kingdom satisfied the demand of Japanese that lived in Josenon kingdom and implemented the friendly police. For example, Joseon kingdom has been settled the Japanese in three ports and carried out the economic aid. Then, these polices needed many economic aid. According to historical records, the total cost of these polices are very similar to the grain supplies that Wakou has plundered from Goryeo kingdom. Ultimately, the economic aid of Joseon kingdom to Japanese is of a degree that Goryeo kingdom is plundered by Wakou. Therefore, the peace of Joseon kingdom is able to be kept by shouldering the economic burden. This is the choice of Joseon kingdom and the peacekeeping cost to the peace of Joseon kingdom and East Asia.